Re: [PATCH] xfs: handle array index overrun in xfs_dir2_leaf_readbuf()

Brian Foster
2017-04-18T16:55:49Z

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:12:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/17/17 3:57 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:45:43PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
> >
> > This fix seems fine to me, but I'm wondering if this code may have
> > issues with other kinds of misalignment between the directory blocks and
> > underlying bmap extents as well. For example, what happens if we end up
> > with something like the following on an 8k dir fsb fs?
> >
> > 0:[0,xxx,3,0]
> > 1:[3,xxx,1,0]
> >
> > ... or ...
> >
> > 0:[0,xxx,3,0]
> > 1:[3,xxx,3,0]
>
> Well, as far as that goes it won't be an issue; for 8k dir block sizes
> we will allocate an extent map with room for 10 extents, and we'll go
> well beyond the above extents which cross directory block boundaries.
>
> > ...
> > N:[...]
> >
> > Am I following correctly that we may end up assuming the wrong mapping
> > for the second dir fsb and/or possibly skipping blocks?
>
> As far as I can tell, this code is only managing the read-ahead state
> by looking at these cached extents. We keep track of our position within
> that allocated array of mappings - this bug just stepped off the end
> while doing so.
>
> Stopping at the correct point should keep all of the state consistent
> and correct.
>
> But yeah, it's kind of hairy & hard to read, IMHO.
>
> Also as far as I can tell, we handle such discontiguities correctly,
> other than the bug I found. If you see something that looks suspicious,
> I'm sure I could tweak my test case to craft a specific situation if
> there's something you'd like to see tested...
>

Background: Eric and I chatted a bit on irc to rectify that what I'm
calling out above is a different issue from what is fixed by this patch.

Eric,

I managed to construct a directory that looks like this:

EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL
0: [0..7]: 88..95 0 (88..95) 8
1: [8..15]: 80..87 0 (80..87) 8
2: [16..39]: 168..191 0 (168..191) 24
3: [40..63]: 5242952..5242975 1 (72..95) 24

The fs has 8k directory fsbs. Dir fsb offset 0 spans extents 0 and 1,
offset 1 (which corresponds to the 512b range 16-31 above) is covered
completely by extent 2 and dir offset 2 (range 32-47) spans extents 2
and 3. An ls of this directory produces this:

XFS (dm-3): Metadata corruption detected at xfs_dir3_data_reada_verify+0x42/0x80 [xfs], xfs_dir3_data_reada block 0x500058
XFS (dm-3): Unmount and run xfs_repair
XFS (dm-3): First 64 bytes of corrupted metadata buffer:
ffffbcb901c44000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 64 0f 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 .......d.xxxxxxx
ffffbcb901c44010: 78 78 78 78 2e 38 38 36 01 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 xxxx.886........
ffffbcb901c44020: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 64 0f 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 .......d.xxxxxxx
ffffbcb901c44030: 78 78 78 78 2e 38 38 37 01 00 00 00 00 00 10 20 xxxx.887.......

... which is yelling about block 184 (dir fsb 2). The fs is otherwise
clean according to xfs_repair.

I _think_ something like the appended diff deals with it, but this is
lightly tested only and could definitely use more eyes.

Brian

--- 8< ---

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
index ad9396e..9fa379d 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_readdir.c
@@ -404,7 +404,8 @@ xfs_dir2_leaf_readbuf(
* Read-ahead a contiguous directory block.
*/
if (i > mip->ra_current &&
- map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount >= geo->fsbcount) {
+ (map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount - mip->ra_offset) >=
+ geo->fsbcount) {
xfs_dir3_data_readahead(dp,
map[mip->ra_index].br_startoff + mip->ra_offset,
XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(dp->i_mount,
@@ -432,7 +433,7 @@ xfs_dir2_leaf_readbuf(
* The rest of this extent but not more than a dir
* block.
*/
- length = min_t(int, geo->fsbcount,
+ length = min_t(int, geo->fsbcount - j,
map[mip->ra_index].br_blockcount -
mip->ra_offset);
mip->ra_offset += length;